IN RE CUSTOMER DEPOSITS OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES (NO. 2)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reviewed a final summary judgment for the defendant in an action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, where the plaintiff was detained by store security after leaving with unpaid merchandise.
The court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the store's security agent had probable cause under the circumstances and that the question of probable cause was for the court to determine.
The plaintiff was detained by store security after leaving with unpaid pens, which she claimed was an unintentional oversight. She offered to pay, but…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rulemaking Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This proceeding was initiated by Order No. 5778, on the commission’s own motion, for the purpose of amending Rule 25-6.97, which presently prescribes the guidelines to be utilized by electric utilities in requiring deposits from their customers, and to repeal Rule 25-6.98 which prescribes the interest to be paid on customer deposits, and to incorporate those provisions into new Rule 25-6.97. At the conclusion of public hearings on the proposed rule, we adopted with some modification a new Rule 25-6.97, as set out in Order No. 6264. Petitions for reconsideration were then filed by various affected parties and oral argument on said petitions was heard by the full commission in December, 1974. Subsequent thereto, the new Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 120, F.S.) became effective on January 1, 1975, and specifically provided that any rule-making proceeding begun before the effective date of the new law, but not concluded by January 1, 1975, must be subject to the requirements of the new law. Thus, we are initiating new rule-making proceedings in a separate docket ánd closing this docket. In view of this procedure, it is not necessary to dispose of the petitions for reconsideration now pending before us.
It is therefore ordered that the petitions for reconsideration of Order No. 6264 filed by Florida Power and Light Company and *143Tampa Electric Company, be and the same are hereby denied in view of our findings hereinabove..
It is further ordered that Docket No. 73322-Rule is hereby clbsed.
It is further ordered that new rule-making proceedings be instituted by separate docket pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.